Assign a 'primary' menu

When It Comes to the Left- Labels Mean Exactly the Opposite of What You Think- Ask Sarah Sanders

By Terry | Donald Trump

Moral Outrage Al?

Did You Ever Notice How the Labels of the Left Are Completely the Opposite of What They Actually Practice. They call for free speech but then shout down or riot when someone with a view they don’t subscribe to shows up. They claim tolerance and broad mindedness but actually practice just the opposite of their claimed moral high ground.

For example, they call themselves “progressives” or “liberals”. However, just how progressive or liberal is it to refuse to serve someone because they share a different political point of view from yours? Wouldn’t that normally fall under the label of bigotry or narrow mindedness?

I mean if you are a gay couple and want to have a wedding cake made and the owner refuses because……..well, you know the drill.

Didn’t Apply to Sarah Though

Sarah Sanders was refused service in a Va. restaurant because the female franchise owner decided that she needed to take a stand against her because of their difference in political views. Stephanie Wilkinson, owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va., wouldn’t serve Sarah because she found the Trump administration “inhuman and unethical”. She feels she has certain standards to uphold such as honesty, compassion and cooperation.

So she told Sarah, “I’d like to ask you to leave.” Which, of course, Sarah did. After all, if the owner hates you and they control the food preparation, it would seem to not be a very good idea to eat whatever you managed to get them to serve you would it? I’d have left too.

But Wait! There is More….

On the Laura Ingraham show, Sarah’s father, former Governor Mike Huckabee, picked up where the story left off. According to Huckabee, after Sarah was asked to leave:

[quote]By the way Laura, there’s a part of that story that hasn’t been told, you’re going to be the first to hear it. Once Sarah and her family left, of course Sarah was asked to please vacate, Sarah and her husband just went home. They had sort of had enough.

But the rest of her family went across the street to a different restaurant. The owner of the Red Hen – nobody’s told this – then followed them across the street, called people, and organized a protest yelling and screaming at them from outside the other restaurant and creating this scene.”[/quote]

Ah yes, the open minded progressives hard at work- being hypocrites yet again.

Back on Planet Earth

Meanwhile Simpleton Stephanie, restaurant owner, is apparently too intellectually lazy to get more information than her favorite mainstream media station feeds her. In addition to the fact that it this lack of background makes her basically a narrow-minded bigot without compassion for the citizens who keep her in business as patrons.

Obviously, Stephanie bought into the media narrative hook, line and sinker.

What she failed to discern is the fact that most of the pictures of the fenced in “children” were from the 2014 Obama influx at the border. So Stephanie’s upset is likely over events that happened 4 years ago. The cages and foil blankets were Obama era stuff. She probably didn’t know that or didn’t want to.

She, of course, isn’t aware that of the 12,000 minors illegally crossing the border at the time of the report, 10,000 of them were unaccompanied. No families to separate here is there? Of course, all the media focused on were the separated children not the 10,000 unaccompanied children.

Obama’s Solution Failed

Of course, like all good, uniformed “progressives” who rely upon the media for their opinions, Stephanie also doesn’t not know that the Obama administration solution to the massive influx of children at our border was to send $750 million of public money to attack the “root causes” of unaccompanied children across the border.

It obviously didn’t work did it, Stephanie? They are still coming to the border. Guess $750 million just wasn’t enough. Just never enough money to solve all these problems it seems huh?

Guess What, Steph..

Throwing money at the problem has failed in just about every case because in 3rd world nations aid is often siphoned off by corrupt leaders before it even reaches its intended targets?

Additionally, the legal and political structures designed to keep the poor from advancing aren’t changed by more money but rather by a change of the same thing the restaurant owner expresses- a narrow minded viewpoint that keeps the poor locked into their poverty cycle. A cycle that more money does not change.

In third world nations, oftentimes socialist economies btw, the poor are used as slaves of the multi-national Corporations or the State. it doesn’t pay their owners to liberate them. Cheap labor can be very profitable for the wealthy “leaders’ in these nations as it turns out. Not a big incentive to improve conditions no matter how much money you throw at the problem from our nation.

 One Thing is Clear However

American citizens don’t count in this equation. Obama’s anti-colonialist inspired solutions didn’t work because they like all liberals think the way to resolve a problem is to throw more money at it. Money supplied by others without their consent or knowledge.

Money that doesn’t end up benefiting the intended target population but rather the already wealthy it seems.

In other words, the hypocrites on the left support another immoral solution- legalized theft.

Foreign aid, it seems, turns out to be nothing more than theft made legal. A fact never acknowledged by the assumed moral superiority of the liberal left of course. Nor the leaders who profit once they get their hands on the free money from our working citizens forcibly taken and/or directed by our government.